That’s a good point. Many people being victimized doesn’t inherently lessen the impact on each victim.

I think my feelings on it are more a reflection on my own situation than the victim’s, and are rooted in jealousy. I’m a young adult. I know I, and many other people, have also suffered because of decisions these companies made in managing their social media platforms. And in my case, I too was a teenager when I began using these services.

I’m incredibly jealous… Six million dollars is life-changing money to most people. That could put me in a very nice home, that could cover me going through college, that could cover the costs of starting a small business, and/or that could fund my retirement.

But I don’t have the resources to go hire a lawyer and pursue legal recourse. A payout like that would likely cover legal fees, sure, but a win isn’t guaranteed, and legal proceedings are expensive while ongoing.

I shared my view in that comment because I don’t think I’m alone. That’s why I think it could be controversial, like the McDonald’s case: especially hearing the headline, it seems like a huge amount awarded, and a lot of people are jealous.

One viewpoint I hadn’t considered, that was mentioned by another reply, is the precedent this sets for future trials. Tbh I think that’s maybe an even bigger reason why this is a big win! Especially as more trials come, these companies could face meaningful consequences for their actions.

It would take a lot of trials for it to not be pocket money for a megacorp tho… and their “solutions” for child safety we have been seeing in Congress are largely shifting the blame to others by implementing age checks… rather than making the platforms less evil for all users.

I definitely see the similarity, at least in public response. I mean, I read that and thought, “$6 million? That’s life-changing money!” And when I read about what the victim experienced, I thought: “Addiction, anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. That’s all like, pretty common for teens these days. And often because of social media, for sure, but why is she specifically being compensated that much?”

For the McDonald’s trial, the woman tried to settle and had to get lawyers to pursue damages. Even though public response was bad, that feels like less of a cash grab.

But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik. Did she just have lawyer money and decide to? And nothing here changes, social media will remain the way it is. It definitely comes off to me as someone looking for a way to get money, even though I am happy with the ruling.

Y’all I think this guy might actually be Steve Wozniak 👀

Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, owns the Linux trademark. He is currently the lead developer, and he approves and merges the code contributions from each of the “areas” (idk the right term for them) into the main branch for release versions.

The Linux kernel is distributed by The Linux Kernel Organization, a “California Public Benefit Corporation”. It’s “recognized by the IRS as a 501©3 private operating foundation”.

They are managed by The Linux Foundation which is “a 501©6 non-profit”.

It’s not “sold” to big corporations, because none of these companies are publicly traded.

But companies do use Linux massively. It has a massive market share in the server space. That’s why the Linux Foundation has a board of directors with many people from big tech corps.

Like other FOSS projects, Linux couldn’t really exist (the way it does) without sponsors and contributors. Companies sponsor its development to help improve and maintain the kernel, and in return they can use it for their needs. That’s how maintainers are compensated for their work. Many contributions are also from companies who add code to help adapt the kernel for their needs.

But because of the project’s licensing and leadership, privacy and transparency are protected. The kernel doesn’t collect or send user data to any company or server. If someone writes code that does that, leadership would probably not merge it anyways, but even if, any person could check (more frequently, “audit”) the code and remove it or choose to not use the project. Anyone is free to “fork” the kernel to make modifications or go a different direction, assuming they follow the license.

Now for desktop Linux distros, like Linux Mint, there’s other software that you should also think about its features and management, and whether that is “safe” too. Out of the box, things like Systemd (init process) or Cinnamon (desktop environment) are maintained and distributed by different groups. IMO for Linux Mint: it’s safe and protects privacy. But that’s subjective, it’s always good to be critical and to form your own opinions! :)